House of Commons Hansard Debates for 18 Jun 1993

Mr. Waldegrave : I am interested in the hon. Lady's first speech on science and technology. It is true that we have to go back nine years to find the last debate that Labour initiated on science and technology. This is the second debate within 12 months that the Government have introduced.

Ms Mowlam : The debate nine years ago was on a balloted motion, but the debates in 1988, 1989 and 1991 were held in Labour time. It is an important point, given the importance that is attached to the issue, but the Minister cannot get away with pretending that his Government have placed emphasis on science and technology in the past 14 years. In view of the interest that is being shown in the House this morning in science and technology, I should like to deal with a number of points that the Minister made about the White Paper. I welcome some parts of the White Paper, but my worries are shared by much of industry and they concern not what the White Paper contains but what it patently does not contain. We were subjected to quotes for the first 15 minutes of the Minister's speech. Yes, industry welcomes the plus parts, but I can assure hon. Members that it is deeply worried that the White Paper is merely a structure without the meat to deliver.

Let us look at some of the ingredients that are missing, but are necessary to secure the right infrastructure for science and technology. Labour would like to know that science and technology policy is central to the Government's thinking--that it is at the heart of what drives them forward when the economic situation is as bad as the Minister outlined. The timing of the publication of the White Paper showed the importance that the Government attach to science and technology. As everybody knows, it was published on the same day as the Green Paper on road pricing, taking the debate on science, which many hon. Members would have welcomed, out of the press and the media. That shows either incompetence

Column 1110

by Government business managers, which is possible, the importance that Government attach to science policy or the Minister's inability to deliver the crucial centrality of science to Government policy. The second matter lacking from the White Paper is a coherent strategy across Departments. As the Minister said this morning, coherence across different Departments is essential. Our concern is that the Office of Science and Technology is not strong enough to co-ordinate and lead that national strategy. The Minister has often said that we should debate the meat of his proposals, and we are willing to debate our genuine concern that it is not strong enough to play a co-ordinating and leading role.

Does the Office of Science and Technology have sufficient power to meet the objectives of the White Paper? We must accept that power still resides with many individual Departments. We cannot get away from the fact that 60 per cent. of Government spending on science and technology remains with the Departments. Therefore, can the OST perform that role?

Mr. Waldegrave : There is some lack of clarity in Labour policy here. Is the hon. Lady saying that all the science spend should be concentrated in one Department--that the 60 per cent. of the budget for research and development by, for example, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Ministry of Defence should be concentrated in one central Department? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) is briefing her. I do not think that she means that, but perhaps she would clarify it.

Ms Mowlam : My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) is whispering in my ear, but I can happily answer the Minister without that. I like my hon. Friend whispering in my ear ; it is a very pleasant experience.

The answer to the Minister's question is that we want more co-ordination between Departments. There must be an overview, which is lacking at present. Let us take two Departments to prove my point.

Mr. Gyles Brandreth (City of Chester) : Is not the distinction that we have a Cabinet Minister to co-ordinate policy, whereas the shadow science spokesman is not in the shadow Cabinet?

Ms Mowlam : I am responsible for science and technology in the shadow Cabinet. I also shadow the Minister's responsibilities for the civil service, open government and a range of issues. I believe, although it is not often apparent in the Government, that we should delegate and work as a team. We have to ask, if the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) wants to get personal, why the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) left and why he wanted to spend more time on his German lessons than in the Department. We believe in delegation and working together. Yes, there is a voice in the shadow Cabinet on science and technology, but I believe in sharing duties with other Front-Bench colleagues.

A number of Conservative Members nodded in agreement with my point about the Office of Science and Technology. We believe that it should play a co- ordinating and leading role. I do not believe that the White Paper delivers that. The Ministry of Defence is a prime example. There is no mention of "Forward Look" in the White

Column 1111

Paper's chapter on the Ministry of Defence. The Government have said that there will be a Government strategy for the better utilisation of defence research and development and for diverting resources from defence to increased civilian spend.

Where is that in the White Paper? Of the many Government documents I have read, the section dealing with the Ministry of Defence strikes me as a blatant example of the Ministry of Defence parachuting in the paragraphs that it wants, without the co-ordination and lead that we had hoped would be forthcoming from the Minister responsible for the OST.

The Minister said that he has ensured greater co-ordination between Departments. In that connection, the LINK programme is emphasised in the White Paper. Supposedly, it has increased the responsibility of the OST by being moved from the DTI. The OST should be undertaking such co-ordination, but, if we examine the detail of the White Paper, it becomes clear that the programme still reports jointly to the two Departments. That is another example of the OST not having the power or bottle. If the Minister doubts that, I refer him to a written question on Wednesday. The answer states :

"The Department of Trade and Industry, like other participating Departments, uses money from its overall research and development budget to support LINK programmes and projects where these provide a way of meeting departmental objectives."--[ Official Report, 16 June 1993 ; Vol. 226, c. 583. ]

Clearly, the administration has come to the OST, but the meat of the project remains with the DTI. There are many bold statements in the White Paper, but none of the necessary mechanisms. In that sense, it is not really a White Paper because it does not contain the necessary mechanisms to deliver the science and technology policy that we all want.

As the Minister is not happy with that argument, I cite another example to support my point. Let us consider Technology Foresight. As I said, we welcome many parts of the White Paper, and the Technology Foresight programme is one of them. We are pleased that the practices followed by our technologically advanced companies, which are already followed by our competitors, are to become part of our forward planning. We are also pleased that the Government have got out of the ideological cleft stick of believing that such a programme would be seen as picking winners. I am pleased that the Minister has managed to jump that hurdle and is satisfied that Technology Foresight will point the way forward for industry.

The Government's problem with Technology Foresight is that, although many reports will be circulated, having Technology Foresight will not in itself deliver the necessary changes. We need mechanisms to involve industry to ensure that new technologies will result, but they are lacking. Although, because of time constraints, I do not want to get involved in arguments about why the public sector borrowing requirement is so high or about the economic problems that the Government have created, I accept what the Minister said. We are not arguing that a great deal more money needs to be thrown at the problem, but unless we resource and fund development programmes, what is the point of having Technology Foresight? Without the necessary funding and the mechanisms to involve industry to ensure that the new technologies are delivered, Technology Foresight will do nothing more than circulate good ideas.

Column 1112

It may be apposite to remind the House that while the Chancellor was launching Technology Foresight on the country, the President of the Board of Trade was closing the advanced technology programmes that were supposed to develop the technologies of the future. Is that Technology Foresight in practice?

What new technologies does the aerospace industry think are required? It produced a report calling on the Government to support some joint technological ventures. The DTI response was to ignore and suppress the report. We welcome the general ideas, but we are worried that the OST lacks influence and that the mechanisms do not exist to develop those ideas.

I believe that the same problem applies to the section of the White Paper dealing with near-market research. Submission after submission to the Chancellor during the consultation period called for a change of heart on near-market research. I think that it was Sir John Fairclough, the architect of the policy, who eventually acknowledged that it had not been working all along.

What does the White Paper say about near-market research? Paragraph 2.20 states :

"the Government recognises that circumstances can arise where market forces do not work in a satisfactory manner".

At least we have got that clear ; the market alone cannot deliver. Paragraph 2.22 tells us that there is a general presumption that near- market work will continue to be funded by the private sector, but, where that approach breaks down, careful account must be taken "of the circumstances of each individual case."

I should have more faith in the Government's ability to make a commitment to near-market research if the Chancellor made it clear who or what would be funded. The White Paper presents no criteria. We and industry need to know whether there will be any avenues of support from the Chancellor's office or from the DTI for near-market research and development other than existing schemes or, as with Technology Foresight, are we to have only window dressing rather than the concrete specifics that will make a difference to science and technology?

I deal now with the advisory bodies announced in the White Paper and which the Minister dealt with this morning, and especially the roles of the Advisory Council on Science and Technology and the Advisory Board for the Research Councils. He said that ACOST is to be replaced by a Council for Science and Technology chaired by the Chancellor, and ABRC is to be wound up and subsumed into the OST. Before the Chancellor says, as he tried to do earlier, that that is what the Labour party wants, let me make it clear to him what changes we believe would have been workable and, in view of the Minister's "open government", would have been more successful in informing the scientific community and others.

ACOST often criticised the Government because it recognised the limits that the Government put on the future of science in this country. What was the Government's response? They internalised the committee and put the Minister in the chair. Ministers disliked the ABRC because it criticised the level of spending on the science base, and the Chancellor's predecessors suppressed some of its reports because they did not like the tone. What happened to the two committees? The ABRC is to be replaced by a Director- General of Research Councils and his expert group of external advisers. The Minister has gone from accountability to anonymity in one leap.

Column 1113

We want a solution offering a bit of both worlds. We happily acknowledge that the ABRC needs to be abolished because resource allocation should be carried out internally, but the role of the Council for Science and Technology should be to make recommendations on the science budget to the OST and to hold the Chancellor and the director- general accountable for their actions. That cannot be done by a council to be chaired by the Chancellor himself. It is the lack of openness which worries us. If some hon. Members want to check, I refer them to Wednesday's edition of Hansard. In column 608 of the written answers, it is made clear that the Minister will not encourage the necessary openness.

The part of the document dealing with international subscriptions was also welcomed by the sections of industry listed by the Minister. However, the White Paper must be read carefully at this stage. We are told that the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council will "not have to cope entirely within its own grant-in-aid with short term variations in international subscriptions."

We welcome that, because short-term variations and currency fluctuations are a problem. It becomes clear from a closer reading of the document, however, that that will apply not just to one committee but to the entire set-up. In future, therefore, when the Government's economic policy goes awry, the whole scientific community--rather than just one committee, as in the past--will be angry. Many in the scientific community will not welcome that development.

The Opposition have long regarded the attitude to European Community funding as scandalous. This is another respect in which the Minister and the OST are not strong enough to deliver the kind of future that we seek for science and technology. The dead hand of the Treasury is very much in evidence in the relevant part of the White Paper :

"The system of attributing the cost of Community expenditure to Departments has given Departments a clear incentive to seek value for money from Community programmes."

We are interested in getting value for money from different programmes, but the practice of attribution has been universally condemned because it has removed much of the added value that could be gained from the finance from European programmes. The White Paper's reference to attribution will clearly please those who are worried about what the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will do, but if we are seeking value for money from the available financial resources for scientific programmes for the good of the future of science and the nation, this is not the way to achieve it. I shall not go into the question of PhDs and MSCs in view of the time and the number of hon. Members wishing to speak. I am sure that others will touch on that subject.

The Minister referred to the importance of university education. In addition to 18 to 24-year-olds, however, we must consider those who are still at school. As part of the changes in the national curriculum announced by the Secretary of State for Education recently, it is proposed to remove technology from the list of foundation subjects that are subject to testing--simply because the quality of technology tests has been criticised and because they have been likened to what happens on "Blue Peter" with toilet rolls, egg cartons and the like.

Column 1114

Dr. Robert Spink (Castle Point) : The hon. Lady is denigrating engineering.

Ms Mowlam : I am certainly not denigrating engineering. I am questioning the Government's ability to develop an education and testing programme for technology. The Opposition support such testing at age 14, although we do not wish the results to be made public. The Government have been sharply criticised for their lack of ability to deliver decent educational standards for the benefit of our country's children. If we are to prosper in 10, 20 or 30 years' time, our schools must provide the kind of training that will excite children, while giving them a scientific base. In his decision, the Secretary of State for Education has acknowledged the Government's inability to deliver on that.

I shall not refer in detail to privatisation and market testing, except to say that there will be problems if the Minister continues market testing of the kind that has been used so far in research departments in the civil service without stopping to think what the outcome will be. We have asked for a moratorium on market testing for the simple reason that it is driven by the desire to produce results rather by an interest in the future quality of scientific research. I hope that the Minister will have the intelligence to say, "Let us stop and evaluate what has happened. Don't let us go hell for leather." If he does not, he will ultimately destroy much of our scientific base.

The Labour party is fortunate enough to be represented in this place by a number of women and I am sure that, if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friends will seek to speak about women in science.

I am happy to welcome the positive aspects of the White Paper, but, as I hope I have shown today, a detailed examination of the document reveals a number of faults and weaknesses, which result, first, from a lack of power and cohesion in the OST and from the Minister's inability to co-ordinate across the Departments and, secondly, from the fact that the Treasury vetoes actions that would improve the position of science and technology. It is a combination of those factors which makes parts of the White Paper weak.

There can be no clearer illustration of the problem than the recently announced closure of the Warren Spring environmental technology laboratory. We have talked about "Forward Look" and about Technology Foresight. Will the Government's forward look really reveal that we need less research into the environment? Will technology forecasts say that environmental technology will not be a growth area in Britain in future? We must look not only at what the Government are saying but at what they are doing. The reality is that the DTI budget has been squeezed so far that it now has no choice but to destroy its own science and technology infrastructure--and there is nothing that the Minister or the OST can do to stop that. The White Paper makes great play of the words "realising our potential". We should remember that the verb "to realise" has two meanings : it means "to understand" and it means "to achieve". After the long consultation period and the production of the White Paper, our understanding may be greater, which I welcome, but, for the reasons that I have given this morning, I fear that there will be a failure to achieve. That will be bad for the future development of Britain.

Several hon. Members rose --

Column 1115

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : There are three hours 55 minutes available for the rest of the debate and no fewer than 21 hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye. I hope that those who are called early in the debate will bear that in mind. 10.36 am

Sir Giles Shaw (Pudsey) : I am grateful for this opportunity to take part in the debate as Chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for agreeing to arrange the debate early, and before too much time has elapsed following the publication of the White Paper. Let me express my appreciation to my colleagues on the Select Committee on Science and Technology for allowing me to chair that Committee and for allowing us to produce a report in record time--as we did last autumn--to add to the discussion about the White Paper on science and technology. Sadly, I speak as a non-scientist--a matter of great regret to the members of my Committee, I understand. I have spent about 19 years in manufacturing industry, however, and can therefore claim that there will be some connection between my remarks and relevant experience. When the Committee prepared the report, we were dealing with proposals relating to the White Paper that we are now debating. We offer our approval to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for much of what he has done, but on other matters we remain critical and unconvinced.

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam). The hon. Gentleman--

Ms Mowlam : Lady.

Sir Giles Shaw : What a terrible thing my lack of science is, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady was being a little hard when she said that the publication of the White Paper could be taken as proof positive of the actions that would follow. She and I know that new policy directions outlined in White Papers are in practice never embarked on without further changes and further pressures. I assure the hon. Lady that, on many of the issues that we are discussing today, the Select Committee will act as a careful and critical observer of what happens and will push and shove to try to ensure that some of the developments that the hon. Lady rightly seeks come to pass. I am sure that that is what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would expect.

Changes to the advisory bodies--the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology and the Advisory Board for the Research Councils--have been recommended by many organisations, including my Committee. We welcome the proposals in the White Paper setting up the Council for Science and Technology. I do not share the anxiety expressed by the hon. Member for Redcar about the fact that it will be chaired by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I regard my right hon. Friend's position in the Department as central if the Government are committed to raising the profile of science in the Government. That will strengthen the position of the policies that flow from the Government. We will be looking with great interest, as will outsiders, at the membership of the council and how that membership will be distributed between the various parties that must be positioned within it.

Column 1116

With regard to the reorganisation of the research councils, there is a general feeling among many organisations that the structure and mission of the councils need changing. My Committee recommended that the concept of a mission-oriented research council should be more fully debated, that missions should be more fully worked out and the cost-benefit studies carried through.

Frankly, it does not surprise me that there has been no opportunity for as rigorous an investigation as we might have hoped for during the preparation of the White Paper. However, I welcome the changes and I strongly hope that, when they are speedily established--my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced that they would be established very speedily--there will be a period of stability for the new system to allow it to take root and to flourish effectively.

I believe that Technology Foresight is probably one of the most important initiatives--albeit belatedly in relation to the United Kingdom--for the Government to undertake. Many people believe that the Government's efforts to support winners in science and technology are not always the best ideas. That is clear from projects such as Comet and TSR2. However, a co-ordinated programme of research foresight technology to select future generic technologies to make them applicable across a number of scientific disciplines is surely a very welcome step and one which many of our main competitors, particularly America and Germany, have used extensively for many years. Research foresight activity on its own is not enough. Using findings in industry to make new and better products ahead of the competition is surely the key to wealth creation. I suspect that my Select Committee will want to monitor those developments extremely carefully to relate them to the actuality of the technology produced and, one hopes, see real improvements in competitiveness in our economy.

I want now to consider the "Forward Look". The preparation by the Office of Science and Technology of an annual "Forward Look", which greatly extends the scope of the current annual review of Government funded R and D, will provide more openness and will allow us to judge the OST and the policy that it pursues. Any Select Committee would welcome that degree of commitment by the Department that it is technically monitoring on behalf of the House. I believe that that will be one of the key changes that the Select Committee will want to expand and explore in the years to come.

Whether the policy will be implemented effectively will, of course, depend on the Department's willingness to comply. In that regard, I believe that one of the key points that I share with the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Redcar-- [Interruption.] I am sorry, the hon. Lady. I suppose that I score zero in the attainment test : eight for creative expression and zero for technical experience. The important point is whether the policy to which I referred will be implemented effectively. The willingness to comply will be the crucial factor. There is anxiety because the way in which the Government's research is departmentalised at the moment will continue uninfluenced. However, I set considerable store by the co- ordinated regime set in place under the chief scientific officer, whose upgrading the Committee recommended and whose appointment I am pleased to welcome. In addition, I place considerable emphasis on the way in

Column 1117

which, when these isues are debated, there will be genuine priorities that will be genuinely agreed and which will stick. If that happens, I believe, unlike the hon. Member for Redcar, that that will lead to genuine prioritisation within the Office of Science and Technology. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is aware, my Committee was clearly of the opinion that ultimately there should be a Ministry for Science which would develop and produce policy and outline and implement policy for the scientific and technological development of this country. Education is obviously a huge theme in any discussion of science and technology. The White Paper's recognition of the critical importance of education and training is greatly welcomed. In my Committee's interview recently with expert witnesses, education and training of young people below university standard was revealed to be the area which gives major cause for concern. It affects the ability of companies to accommodate changes in work practice to take into account new technologies with the same speed and flexibility as their overseas competitors. A very close eye must be kept on the way in which education in science and technology delivers the goods, and I am sure that my Committee will do that.

I suspect that defence R and D is the biggest problem with which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has to deal, and I know that he is a man of considerable patience. It is clear from the White Paper that although the words may be useful and amiable in their way, they do not betoken a significant shift of defence R and D to civil expenditure. Defence R and D is the greatest recipient of Government research funding at the moment and we have suffered, along with America and France, in relation to the amount of civil funding compared with that in Japan and Germany, which have negligible defence R and D.

On a global scale, the ending of the cold war must be the biggest influence on the way in which the structure and organisation of science and technology investment can now be changed. The demand for defence-specific R and D in the west is certain to fall and the United Kingdom will be no exception. That reduction should not be seen as an opportunity to reduce total Government spending. Instead, the funding must be transferred to civil R and D.

Furthermore, defence R and D should, unless there are cogent reasons against it, be designed with spin-off and spin-in measures with civil activity as a key purpose. I hope that the OST will look closely at that. Sadly, although the White Paper recognises that aim, it does not provide the OST with any control in that respect and it relies heavily on the co- operation of the Ministry of Defence. I expect that my Committee will look at that aspect very keenly in the years to come.

Innovation is surely the key to wealvation, no amount of research foresight activity, international collaboration or other activities described in the White Paper will lead to the creation of wealth, which is absolutely essential to our future.

Japan has few basic research achievements if one considers the number of Nobel prizes that Japan has won.

Column 1118

However, Japan has been inordinately successful in exploiting technology and creating wealth. As my right hon. Friend will know, my Committee is currently investigating the way in which the science base may be translated into competitive and innovative technology and we will be visiting Japan later in the year. Information to date leads to the view that there is an endemic problem in our education, training and culture which must be addressed.

The Committee recommended that it would be appropriate for the OST to have an overview of schemes intended to encourage innovation in industry to ensure that Departments worked to common policies and that all schemes were part of a coherent framework for providing industry support. I urge the importance of that activity and hope that there will be close co-operation between all the Departments concerned. We recommended that the OST and the Department of Trade and Industry should work to ensure that the near-market policy on research funding is re-examined. Reference has already been made to that and we welcome the signs that that policy will be relaxed. We welcome even more the evidence that it has been relaxed.

In respect of R and D funding, few would argue with the basic proposition that investment in science ultimately creates wealth. It is, therefore, becoming more apparent that wealth is often a precondition for that investment. The oft-lamented view that the United Kingdom does not invest enough in R and D is not just a problem for consideration by the Government alone ; it should also be considered by industry. Of estimated United Kingdom civil research funding in 1990 of £9.4 billion, just under 60 per cent. was funded by industry and 28 per cent. by the Government. That figure for industry compares with 60 per cent. in Germany, 70 per cent. in Japan--the highest of any nation--and 40 per cent. in France. While we have our current public sector borrowing requirement problems, it is unlikely that significant additional Government funding of civil research will be forthcoming. However, we must ensure that savings in defence R and D are transferred to the civil side. At the same time, industry must be encouraged to increase its expenditure and the City and shareholders must be pressed to face up to the importance of such expenditure to companies and, thus, to the country. Sadly, no action is proposed on that in the White Paper. What is needed now is a follow-up to the White Paper which considers industry and sources of finance and the investigations that my Committee might undertake to ensure that there are proper routes by which long-term funding can be directed towards industrial development in R and D.

On the international side, the extent to which the same new or generic technologies are reflected in each country's list of priorities is remarkable. Together with the significant levels of investment often required in setting up research facilities, that means that collaborative research is increasingly taking place, and I welcome that. That may involve the setting up of common facilities like CERN or the European bio- information institute which we are pleased to see will be located here, or it may just involve collaboration between organisations in different countries, as happens in the framework programme.

Whatever the situation, the OST must ensure that the interests of the United Kingdom are fully reflected in such collaborative projects, that United Kingdom organisations are aware of and fully participate in such projects,

Column 1119

whether or not the United Kingdom is directly involved. We must take every opportunity to host international scientific facilities when they are germane to United Kingdom interests. Although the Economic Community is a prime region for collaboration, we should not neglect opportunities with other countries.

We are pleased that the dual funding policy is to continue. We consider it important, as do our colleagues on the House of Lords Select Committee, that universities continue to be regarded as whole institutions.

Let me refer to one or two broader themes. It is widely recognised that the United Kingdom's science base is competitive and internationally respected ; indeed, our clutch of Nobel prizes are strong, but it is a fact that the tendons of technology are less well developed for a major industrial economy such as ours. I respect the view that manufacturing industry itself must be the lead influence for turning science into innovative technology. Customer pull, in the jargon of marketing, must be the preferred route.

There is no denying that for long periods there has been industrial decline in this country. The 19th century smoke-stack industries became obsolete, or failed to generate funds for investment, or failed in the free competition that faced them, or failed when imperial markets disappeared, or failed in countless recessions or economic difficulties, or failed when those who owned or managed them had not the talent so to do--a whole range of reasons, a whole range of excuses. That has passed. But with the demise, our industrial culture also departed. To revive our industrial culture must be our first priority. It starts with education. How we welcome the development, albeit belatedly again, of a proper design and technology and science and technology base for all children passing through our education stream.

The emphasis must shift back towards the importance of industry in general and the making of things in particular. The link between the creation of new materials and products on the one hand and the creation of wealth on the other hand must also be re-established. We must lift, too, the status of our engineers and our producers, as they do in Germany. The belief that "profit" is a dirty word must give way to the recognition that risk should be rewarded and that commercial success in the marketplace has to be applauded. I am glad that non-vocational qualifications and the various derivatives therefrom are being rapidly developed to stand alongside other academic qualifications. Let us never forget that small or medium-sized enterprises will be looking to schools rather than to universities to provide the skills that they need to make things happen in the marketplace.

If we are serious, too, about regaining the jobs that were so tragically lost by recession in recent years, the creation of new small businesses is much more likely to help than the expansion of larger ones when it comes to a decision on increasing jobs. New investment in new technology in large companies is frequently based on a reduction in manning levels. The preferable basis for a decision to invest in new manufacturing technology is to add values to the product and to improve quality for the consumer. Ultimately, science and technology must be judged as ingredients-- important, but ingredients only--in improving consumer satisfaction. It is the consumer in the marketplace who ultimately determines all commercial success. Any restoration of our industrial culture and any

Column 1120

improvement in our technology must be matched, too, by an improvement in our capacity to market products effectively. The White Paper is forward looking. I trust that it will be a catalyst for change to help to secure Britain's place in the intensely competitive and challenging environment in which our future lies.

10.53 am

Mr. Gordon Oakes (Halton) : I warmly welcome what the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) has said. I agree with almost every word, and I applaud the way in which he delivered his sentiments. Whether or not the hon. Gentleman has scientific qualifications, the Select Committee on Science and Technology is in very safe hands if speeches of that calibre emanate from its Chairman.

As the hon. Gentleman said, this subject is absolutely vital to the future of our nation. Look at Britain--we are a small, fairly overcrowded island, and we have few, if any, natural resources. However, we have the skill and inventiveness of our people. The White Paper might further enhance and co- ordinate the inventiveness of our people.

If this matter is the Government's top priority--the Secretary of State indicated that it was--why, oh why, have this debate on a Friday ? Friday is the only working day of the week when hon. Members can have contact with their constituencies. They need to be either in their constituencies or on their way to them on Fridays. Twenty-one hon. Members are present on a Friday--probably the highest attendance ever on a Friday for non-Maastricht business--in order to contribute to the debate. I should have thought that we could have had prime time for such an important subject.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), I agree with much of what is in the White Paper, but I am worried about its implementation. The White Paper says all the right things--some of them new, some of them pious --with which few people could disagree, but how will it be implemented? As my hon. Friend asked, where is the co-ordination between Departments?

What happens when there are breakthroughs in science and engineering, particularly engineering? We are a nation of inventors--look at the number of Nobel prizes that this small country wins, and, in particular, at the pharmaceutical industry and the number of lives that have been saved because of inventions in this country. How often are British inventions developed abroad? The White Paper does not address that problem. The Secretary of State might say that that is a problem for the Department of Trade and

Industry--indeed it is--but I want co-ordination.

The fault lies not with our scientific research, our inventors or even our company managements, but largely with the banks. The banks cannot see further than their noses or further than a week's profit. When something is invented or a breakthrough occurs, the company and inventor concerned want to develop it in this country, but they cannot do so because of a lack of funding from our banks. No country--certainly not the United States, Japan or most of our European competitors--would allow

Column 1121

brilliant inventions and breakthroughs to be developed in other countries. The list is endless, as all hon. Members know. Did the Secretary of State have discussions with, or make representations to, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health when the limited list was considered? There is no doubt that if the limited list is accepted in the form in which it was proposed, it will kill stone dead research in the pharmaceutical industry, one of our most profitable industries.

When the limited list was introduced in such a rough-handed way, in every sphere in which it applied, research and development were stopped in the relevant branch of medicine. The Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry spells that out in detail in an advertisement in The House magazine.

I am not saying that cuts do not have to be made in drug expenditure--they do. However, there are other ways to tackle it. I hope that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancanster, who has special responsibility for science and technology, will have a word with the Secretary of State for Health and say, "Look what you will do to research in the pharmaceutical industry if you proceed in that way." My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar mentioned the fact that no extra money will emanate from the White Paper, especially with regard to defence. Of course, defence expenditure will decrease. Thank God it will. It was bound to decrease, because our biggest defence threat is rapidly disappearing. We still need forces, but we do not need the same amount of research that we had at one time because of the sophisticated equipment that our potential enemies might have had. Where has the money gone? There will be a net loss to research and development when the defence budget is reduced.

I quote from a briefing document from the Save British Science campaign that puts the matter excellently and more succinctly than I could :

"The MoD is the government's biggest spender on R and D, a massive £2.6 billion p.a. But it has clearly kept a considerable distance from the White Paper and has contributed nothing of significance to the overall approach.

There are no plans, similar to those for example in the USA, to employ MoD facilities to assist industry of the S and EB. None of the past reduction of defence R and D expenditure, now about £0.6 billion less p.a., has been transferred of civil R and D."

That is a glaring omission from the White Paper--it has not been properly tackled. The funding that has hitherto gone to research and development will be lost for ever.

I have another concern--it is a niggling point because, obviously, my base is on the chemistry side of research and development. There is considerable concern in the Chemical Industries Association and the Royal Society of Chemistry about the way in which some of the funds and research councils are being set up, which could act to the detriment of chemistry as a subject.

I quote from an excellent document produced by Mr. Stephen Benn of the Royal Society of Chemistry :

"For example, take the case of biological organic chemistry which is crucial to the new developments in the pharmaceutical industry. The Society is concerned that funding for this important and exciting new area will fall between two stools. Why? Because (a) the Chemistry Committee (or equivalent) of the new EPSRC will not fund such research on the grounds that it seems like biology ; (b) The new BBSRC will also not fund this work because they will

Column 1122

give preference (naturally enough) to more obvious biological research. In summary : while biologists have three RCs to approach for funding and physicists have two RCs chemistry is in danger of not having one single obvious RC to call home'."

That is a real problem. I hope that the Royal Society of Chemistry will be one of the organisations that sit on the advisory bodies as it can give invaluable independent advice to central Government. Environmental research will probably replace defence research at the top of our agenda. Environmental research is a new frontier science, because, if we are to advance as a nation with the standard of comfort to which we are accustomed, the only sphere of activity that can clean up the planet are those who have polluted it. The only salvation for this country--or, indeed, the world--lies in what our chemical industry can do to redress the imbalance of the past and ensure that it does not happen again.

I am proud of ICI in my constituency and its research and development. I am proud of the fact that it developed an ozone-friendly substance called KLEA which does not contain chlorofluorocarbons. The company has had nothing but coals heaped on its head after spending £100 million and making a breakthrough that led the world. Greenpeace still attacks it, and says that the substance is not the answer. I do not know what Greenpeace wants instead of KLEA.

That is an example of a company spending a vast amount of resources, making the breakthrough and producing the substance in my constituency across the river at Runcorn but getting nothing but abuse for its activities. We must stop behaving in that silly way towards our industries and criticising them.

I have so much that I want to say, but many hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to speak. I do not want to be accused of abusing my position as a Privy Councillor by giving a long speech or being called early in the debate. I agree with what the White Paper says about the importance of science education at an early age : it is an age-old problem. In those far- off days before 1979 when we had a Labour Government, I was the Minister of State responsible for higher education and science. At that time, the problem had been there for 20 or 30 years and it is still there now. It is not a party-political problem.

The problem is the lack of attention that is given to science as it is pushed lower down the curriculum in our schools and the preference that many of us and the media have for the arts. People will look at a cathedral, say that it is a wonderful structure and ask : "How could the mind of man devise this?" They never look at a machine in that way, yet it is just as important as far as the practical lives of people are concerned.

We should face the fact that science is more difficult at examination level. Science subjects are more difficult than the arts and that deters some people. Science costs more. Certainly, the higher one goes up the scale, the more a science degree costs, compared to an arts degree. That may be a deterrent to hard-pressed local authorities, hard-pressed opt-out schools, and so on. They will clip the money available for science, because it is expensive. The real problem does not lie with science teaching, or lack of it. It lies with another subject--mathematics. We cannot have an innumerate scientist, whether it is archaeology, astronomy or zoology and right through the gamut of the sciences. If a youngster does not have a

Column 1123

mathematical base, he can never become a scientist or an engineer. It is important that although the White Paper stresses science, it does not stress mathematics sufficiently. People who want to become scientists but do not have that mathematical foundation are doomed to failure, because they cannot advance in their subject.

Mrs. Anne Campbell : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new system of university funding, which effectively downgrades mathematics compared with other practical science subjects, is damaging the provision of mathematicians and, ultimately, our science base?

Mr. Oakes : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It was bad enough before--as my hon. Friend rightly said, it is now going in the wrong direction altogether.

This subject is not a party-political one--it is too important. As I said at the outset, it is vital to the whole future of this nation. It is essential if we are to create jobs. But it is more than that. If we are to keep the jobs we have at present, there must be a co-ordinated foundation of research in science and engineering. When the Minister sets up the research councils and undertakes his future activities in Cabinet, I beg him to fight his ministerial colleagues for science and research development and not let them blindly damage the structure of research and development, whether it is the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Health or any other Government Department. I urge him to fight for the future foundations of science in this country.

11.9 am

Next Section

Home Page